(The following article by James Quirk Jr. was posted on the Burlington Hawkeye website on March 15.)
BURLINGTON, Iowa — Members of the Burlington City Council were mum after a closed–door Monday meeting held to discuss the ongoing litigation between the city and BNSF Railway.
When the 30–minute executive session with City Attorney Scott Power was over, Councilman Bill Ell reiterated a statement he made last week: “I’m still comfortable with the case. That’s all I can tell you.”
“I’ve been told that I can’t comment on matters of the lawsuit,” Councilman Mike Campbell said when the meeting was over.
“Any comment could compromise the successful outcome of the case and I’m not in a position to make a comment,” Councilman Chris King said.
“I don’t have any comments about it,” Councilwoman Mary Baker said.
Baker, however, did allude to the possibility of BNSF returning jobs to the area.
“There are so many things happening nowadays and it looks like the railroad is doing good in many places,” she said. “Maybe they’ll consider us in Burlington.”
The lawsuit the city filed against BNSF a year ago alleges the railroad breached an 1858 agreement that stipulated the railroad could use riverfront property for its operations as long as it maintains its principal shops in the city.
The railroad has transferred or eliminated all local positions in the past couple of years.
Council members said in 2004 that their hope is the U.S. District Court in Davenport, where the case will be heard in November, will rule in the city’s favor and force BNSF to start paying rent to use the riverfront property.
The council hopes the rent is so high that BNSF decides it’s more lucrative to return jobs to the local locomotive shops in the city.
Mayor Mike Edwards declined to comment on Monday’s closed meeting, which was held after the council’s regular 4:30 p.m. work session.
It’s unclear whether details of a 1985 agreement between the city and railroad were discussed during Monday’s executive session.
Some council members, including Campbell and Edwards, said last week they never knew of a 1985 agreement between the city and BNSF, which the railroad, in its answer to the city suit, believes supersedes the 1858 agreement. Baker said Monday she, too, was unaware of the 1985 agreement before the council decided to move forward with the lawsuit in March 2004.
Ell and King said they couldn’t remember whether Power briefed them on the 1985 agreement before the lawsuit was filed.
The 1985 agreement, in addition to clarifying which entity, the city or railroad, owns specific portions of property on the riverfront, states the railroad could continue using riverfront property as long as it’s for railroad purposes. It states nothing about the railroad having to maintain the local shops in the city.